| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he made his comments. On the photographs, my contribution to the typographical design and layout of the White Paper was to remove additional photographs of myself that I spotted. I am afraid that I take a rather po-faced view about White Papers, but I point out gently that the previous Government introduced the revolutionary idea of including photographs in such documents.
As I made clear in my statement, this is a White Paper, so it contains reasonably firm proposals, but the point of publishing one well in advance of legislation is to seek the views of the House, interested organisations and the public. We shall take those properly into account, and I almost guarantee that the final proposals will differ to some degree from the proposals in the White Paper; that is the whole purpose of having such consultation and open debate.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the powers of licensing justices. To pick him up on one detail, if someone simply had an accredited qualification, they would not be granted a licence by virtue of that fact, without an interview. They might be granted a licence without an interview if they also had no previous convictions, which is an extremely important clarification. If they had convictions, they would almost certainly have to be subject to interview. At the moment, licensing justices who have before them someone who has an accredited qualification and no previous convictions are almost bound, as a matter of obligation in law, to issue that person with a licence, unless something else is known about them.
The question of who should make the initial decisions about licences is a matter of fine judgment, which we debated at some length. We continue to be open to argument about that. If we are to have a streamlined system, one authority must make the decisions about all the licences that affect a particular set of premises. At present, the local authorities have considerable sway over the circumstances in which licensed premises operate. The only licence that in practice is issued by the magistrates is the alcohol licence. I appreciate the very good work that has been done in the past by magistrates, and they will continue to have a significant role in these proposals, as I will explain.
It is a matter not of the local authorities exercising a political judgment, with a capital P, but of ensuring that they can develop a policy for determining, for example,
whether 24-hour opening can safely take place without disruption to residents. Typically, that would be only in the centre of large cities and towns. With regard to public houses in residential areas, of which there are many, the authority's policy must ensure that it operates in a way that gives first preference to the interests of the residents. That answers another point raised by the hon. Gentleman.Apart from split responsibility, the problem with using the courts is that courts of law must operate under much less flexible arrangements. As I will take proper account of the hon. Gentleman's points, I ask him to consider this in return: we thought that the sensible way to square the circle was for the local authorities to make the initial decisions about all licensing matters--as I said in my statement, within clear national criteria and clear statutory rules and guidance about how they operate locally--but to provide for a right of appeal to the courts.
I said that our preference was for the appeal to go to the Crown court, where there would be two magistrates sitting with a Crown court judge to hear the appeal. They would be experienced magistrates, so they would have a clear role there. I also said in my statement that although that is our preference, we accept that there are arguments for using the magistrates as the appeal court or for a special tribunal, and we will consider them.
The issue of Sunday is discussed in the White Paper. As it happens, given my Nonconformist background, I am one of those who voted against an extension of Sunday opening hours for shops, but that argument was lost. It is difficult to argue subsequently for special arrangements for Sunday opening for public houses or, say, supermarkets, separate from those that apply to shops. It is better for those to be taken into account in the overall policy set by the local authority, except for Wales.
Unless the law is changed--I take my cue entirely from Welsh Members and the Welsh Assembly--it will be possible to trigger polls in Welsh counties in 2004. That is a matter for the people of Wales, as expressed through their representatives.
On timetable, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any more detail, except that we intend to legislate as soon as we can, once we have gathered together the consultations.
Madam Speaker: May we now have a brisk exchange? There are so many hon. Members seeking to put questions that it may not be possible for me to call them all. I am sure that the Secretary of State will oblige with brisk replies. Thank you.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): In this sensible package of ideas, my right hon. Friend did not mention the difficult matter of the direct connection between alcohol and violence in domestic circumstances. Will he undertake to bear that in mind? Longer drinking hours may result in even greater pressure on those who abuse alcohol, and that is in no one's interest.
Mr. Straw: Yes, I will. My statement was replete with concern about the effect of alcohol on crime.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): The White Paper is greatly welcomed by the Liberal Democrats. It seems to contain eminently sensible proposals for the modern age, both for the customer and for business.
I have two short questions. First, can the Secretary of State be slightly more specific? When applications are made to the local authority, as I believe that they should be, will the local authority have absolute discretion to accede to or turn them down--for example, on the ground that there are too many other premises in the immediate area for the extension to be needed or properly managed? Secondly, linked to the question of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), will the incidence of violence in or outside public houses in the community be taken into account when applications are considered?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the measures. No absolute discretion will be available to local authorities. They will have to work within the law as this House and the other place provide and, as I have said, under national criteria, statutory rules and guidance. The police and residents will have a right of appeal against any local authority's decision.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is emphatically yes. As he will know from the White Paper, we propose to give the police important additional powers, including one, at the decision of a police inspector or someone above that rank, to close for 24 hours licensed premises where there is serious disorder--under similar powers to those already available to fire authorities.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although the proposals will rightly assist those who want a pleasant, social drink, residents whose lives can be made a misery by loud music, riotous behaviour, hooliganism and vandalism, about which I have many complaints in my constituency, will be protected? Will he also confirm that organisations such as Gorton Trades and Labour club will retain its special status?
Mr. Straw: I had Gorton Trades and Labour club at the forefront of my mind when I agreed the proposals; clubs will retain their special status. The proposals in the White Paper will give local residents a much greater say in, and influence over, the licensing arrangements for pubs and clubs. Indeed, my right hon. Friend's comments illustrate the fact that current arrangements are not properly working to safeguard local residents.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): Pursuant to the previous question, since the impact of the proposals on inner-city constituencies impinges particularly on the residential community, does the Secretary of State recognise that the number of police supervising the behaviour of licensees in recent decades has remained static, while the number of licences in the west end has risen sharply, and that, until that ratio changes, the residential community will take little comfort from his encouraging reassurances?
Mr. Straw: I acknowledge the particular pressure on residents of areas such as the one that the right hon. Gentleman represents. I also accept that he has not had a chance to read the White Paper. I look forward to his views and those of his local authorities, particularly
Westminster. Modernisation of licensing arrangements and greatly strengthened powers of the police, local authorities and courts should ensure that his resident constituents have a better and safer life.
Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): Pursuant to the previous two questions, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that extension of licensing hours and, indeed, changes of licensed premises are of particular importance in a constituency such as mine. Although I welcome the importance that he attaches to the opinion of local residents, will he ensure that they may know well in advance of any proposal either for extension or change of venue? At the moment, it is virtually impossible for my constituents to know what is proposed.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |